Radioactive fallout from Cold War nuclear weapons tests caused at least 15,000 cancer deaths in U.S. residents born after 1951, according to data from an unreleased federal study. The study, coupled with findings from previous government investigations, estimates that 20,000 non-fatal cancers -- and possibly far more -- also are attributed to the tests. So what are the possible repurcussions of these findings? Talk to USA TODAY investigative reporter Pete Eisler about the story.

Shepherdsville Kentucky :
In 1969 I was involved in neuclear emergency team training for the US Army. We plotted alpha and gamma hotspots in sight of Albuquerque New Mexico. The alpha radiation was so intense you could see it, like heat waves 6 to 8 inches above the ground. I have always wondered if this was dangerous to the locals. I knew birds insects, wind ect. could disperse alpha in a contaminated area. We always went through a hot line (decontamination procedure) after each exercise. I have always wondered about this. Is there a high rate of cancer death in that area? Are my chances of cancer greater because of possible exposure?

Pete Eisler:
You would have been working about seven years after the U.S. conducted its last above-ground test in Nevada, but it's entirely possible that there would have been residual radiation from fallout linked to the tests. Without knowing precisely where you were and how hot that area may have been, it's impossible to say what sort of cancer risks may or may not be applicable in your case. It certainly seems likely that you suffered at least some exposure and there's a pretty good chance that such exposure would have had at least an incremental effect on your odds of suffering cancer. Again, it would depend on what elements you were exposed to, how long you were exposed and so forth. Also, going through the decontamination line probably would have diminished some of your exposure risks. Many of the records from that period have been declassified and it might be worth filing a request with the Army under the Freedom of Information Act to get a copy of whatever studies or reports were generated as a result of your work. That could provide a lot of specific information on the radiation levels you encountered and, with that, it would be easier to determine what cancer risks, if any, may have resulted.Niagara Falls, New York :
Mr. Eisler--First, THANK YOU for your very informative series. This one and the last. Thanks also to Dr. Makhijani. My Question is this--When will all
the fallout from nuclear testing fall out of the atmosphere?
I have heard that this process is still happening and will continue to happen for years to come.

Pete Eisler:
Yes, fallout from above-ground weapons tests still is present in the atmosphere, but at vastly lower levels than during the period when tests were being conducted. Also, many of the more dangerous elements in the fallout are relatively short-lived, so the cancer risks from exposure have been diminishing since above-ground testing was halted in 1963 (several countries didn't abide by the ban and continued such testing, but it was far less frequent). Remnants of the fallout will remain in the atmosphere -- and on the ground -- for many years to come. But the risks associated with those elements is dramatically lower than in the heyday of testing, and they will continue to diminish.Portland Maine :
How will this fallout affect the global water supplies?
Pete leavitt

Pete Eisler:
I haven't heard or read anything specific about the impact of fallout on global water supplies. I don't believe the fallout levels were substantial enough to have a significant effect on water, but I can't say for certain. Contaminated water is not among the pathways that have been identified for human exposure to fallout. I have read about some evidence of problems among marine life in parts of the Pacific where nuclear weapons were tested. I'll do some homework on this and get back to you with more information.West Springfield, Pa :
What are the specific risks and types of cancers? Both of my parents died of cancer within 4 years of each other, both in the mid 1980's. I was born in Detroit, Mi in 1963, what are the risks for me?

Pete Eisler:
There are many cancers that are considered to be radiogenic, meaning they can be triggered by exposure to different types of radiation. For example, there's strong evidence that exposure to iodine-131, which is one of the many components of nuclear fallout, causes thyroid cancer. Similarly, radiation absorbed internally is considered to increase risks of leukemia. These are just two of many cancers -- breast cancer, skin cancer, lung cancer and certain brain cancers among them -- that are suspected of being linked to radiation exposure. But it's impossible to say whether any given case of cancer is directly related to fallout, even among people in the highest risk populations. In any individual case, there simply are too many confounding factors. Even if you were exposed to fallout, your cancer could be genetic, it could be from behavioral factors, such as smoking, or it could be from otehr environmental exposures (workplace exposure to chemicals, for example, or drinking from a polluted water supply) that you don't even know about. On top of all that, the relationship between radiation and many types of cancer still is a matter of scientific debate, ie: how much exposure do you need before it actually makes you sick? As for your own exposure, being born in 1963, you're at the tail end of the years when people faced the greatest risks. After the 1963 international ban on above-ground weapons tests, there were very few such explosions. Since many of the more dangerous elements in radioactive fallout are relatively short-lived, risks from exposure to fallout would gradually diminish every year after 1963.Plainview, Texas :
My children are in their early 40's. Are they more at risk for cancer than I am at 69 years old?

Pete Eisler:
People born in the early and mid-1950s generally would have faced the greatest exposure to fallout, and that exposure would vary based on where the person was living and a variety of other factors, such as eating habits (certain elements, for example, are concentrated in the milk of cows and goats, so someone who was drinking fresh goat's milk in a county that suffered higher levels of fallout would be at higher risk than someone who was drinking processed milk in a low-exposure county).Rolla ND :
What kind of detection device can be used to see what we are presently being exposed to?

Pete Eisler:
There's natural radiation all around us -- in the air, the soil, etc. And a simple Geiger counter, the basic instrument used to measure radiation -- can detect elevated levels of radiation. But a more sophisticated analysis of, say, residual fallout elements in soil, would require sophisticated testing in a laboratory. There are commercial labs in most major metropolitan areas that can do this sort of work. For more information on detecting the presence of unnatural radioactive elements in the environment, there are several public interest groups that you can contact. Among them: The Institute for Energy and Environmental Research in Takoma Park, Md., and the Alliance for Nuclear Accountability. Both have web sites that may be helpful.Spartanburg,SC :
Don't you think that our gov't knew about these effects early on after effects on Japanese fishermen after Nagasaki and Hiroshima and were obligated to at least warn the American people?

Pete Eisler:
The government certainly was aware in the 1940s that exposure to radiation could be dangerous, but the field of radiation studies was in its infancy. But the data collected by the Atomic Energy Agency in Japan, as well as additional information generated by studies here in the United States, generally was based on much higher exposure levels than those that most people suffered from fallout generated by nuclear weapons tests. even in the 1950s, the U.S. government had solid evidence that fallout from the Nevada test site was spreading all over the country. But the risks of that relatively low level of radiation were a subject of great debate. Should the government have erred on the side of caution and informed people? I'm not sure my opinion on that really matters. It certainly remains a hot topic, even today. Many people believe the government should have done more at the time and should be doing more today to define whatever risks it created and inform the public of those risks. Others are quick to note that the Cold War was a different environment, where the pressure to develop new weapons and win the arms race legitimately took precedent. This is, in large respect, a moral and ethical debate. As such, I don't think there ever will be a "final" answer.Johnstown, Pennsylvania. :
One chest x-ray exposes you to
30 Roentgens. You could have at least 30 of these per yr without any problems. Cancer of the thyroid is the easiest through surgery to cure and you could live to be 90 or more. So isn't this article a scare tactic because most people in the medical field has known about the exposure in Penna, as from 8 Mile Island. So what is new that I have not heard about or anyothers in the Medical field/ml

Pete Eisler:
Well, there are a couple of new things here: First, this is the first time the U.S. government has ever assessed the spread and health effects of fallout from nuclear weapons testing, both at our own Nevada Test Site and in other parts of the world. Second, this is the first time the government ever has acknowledged a substantial number of cancers resulting from exposure to fallout beyond the so-called "downwinder" areas immediately adjacent to the Nevada Test Site. So, tehre's a lot of new information for the public here. Whether it was important to put that information into the public realm is, I suppose, a matter of personal opinion. Our business is to convey information to the public. If people don't want it, they don't have to read it. I certainly don't think the government's intent here was to scare people. In fact, this report may go a long way towards dispelling some popular myths about nuclear fallout. As for your other comments: Is thyroid cancer among the most survivable forms of cancer? Yes, it has a survival rate of upwards of 90%. But that doesn't mean it's any picnic to have -- just ask someone suffering with it. Second, the information contained in this fallout report goes well beyond what scientists and public health officials in Pennsylvania know about public exposure to fallout, and any exposure from three Mile Island would be above and beyond that associated with nuclear weapons testing. Finally, if someone is telling you it's okay to get 30 chest x-rays a year, every year, I'd consider finding a new advisor. I'd be shocked if you could find a doctor who would recommend that. Could you do it without getting cancer? Very possibly. Different people respond to radiation in different ways. But it certainly isn't ideal. In fact, most doctors suggest that pregnant women and infants shouldn't get chest rays at all unless it's absolutely necessary.Kingsford, Michigan :
Is this information from the federal study available to the public? Over the internet?

Pete Eisler:
Once the study is released, and that probably will happen in the coming weeks, the material is supposed to be posted at the website of the U.S. Centers for Disease Control, which is one of the authors of the report. Try this link.Eniwetock/Bakini Is tests :
Thousands of military and civilians were exposed to continuous levels of radiation due to fallout and prompt radiation from the various tests. I was one of them and now have cancer. There has never been any medical concern or follow-up shown by the government with respect to the participants. I supose the government is holding its breadth for another 20 years until that generation passes one way or another. Jerry Sullivan

Pete Eisler:
The government certainly took its time before offering any sort of medical assistance or compensation to people in areas that were profoundly affected by fallout from nuclear weapons tests. There has been some compensation for some of these groups, such as the Marshall Islanders and the so-called "downwinders" in certain Nevada and Utah counties immediately adjacent to the U.S. government's Nevada Test Site. And the government just last year initiated a new program to compensate nuclear weapons workers with cancers and other illnesses related to their on-the-job exposure to radiation and various toxins, such as beryllium. Still, there are a lot of potential victims out there who haven't gotten the sort of help they believe they deserve, and the so-called Atomic Veterans are one of them. There's been a lot more government openness in recent years about the damage wrought by nuclear weapons testing, and the trend seems to be towards a more activist approach to dealing with this particular legacy of the Cold War. Still, there are many both inside and outside government who believe more should be done. It's going to be interesting to see how all this debate plays out in the coming months and years. I suppose there may be some in government who are simply waiting for the victims to die, but I actually believe the motivations behind the government's actions in these matters are more complicated than that.NAPLES, FL. :
My ex-husband was in the U S Navy AND WAS sent to DUGWAY, UTAH,in the summer of 1954. He was not allowed to tell me what he was doing there,but I guess it was some secret gov. project. He died of COLON CANCER in June 1992. I have two children who were born after he had been in Utah, one in 1959 and the other in 1960 could this cancer be passed on to them?

Pete Eisler:
Dugway also was, I believe, a test site for the U.S. chemical weapons program during this period. As I mentioned above, there never will be any way to tell precisely what caused your husband's cancer. If it was the result of some sort of environmental exposure, either from fallout, from something else going on at Dugway or from some totally unrelated factor, then there would be no biological reason why that would be passed to your children (unless, of course, they also got cancer from the same environmental source). If your husband's cancer was simply the result of some genetic predisposition, which also is entirely possible, than that predisposition can, in some cases, be passed to future generations. I certainly would suggest that your grown children alert their doctors to their family history of colon cancer and receive proper screening. Early intervention can substantially boost survival rates for that particular disease.Murrysville, PA :
Mr. Eisler,
I recall the almost daily reports of radiation readings following the various tests as a young boy. The concern back then was the impact on dairy products being processed in states like Wisconsin. I wonder if this is significant and if so, does it impact the distribution study across the US? Thanks.
Mick

Pete Eisler:
Yes, there was some concern even at that time that fresh milk from both cows and goats could provide a pathway for public exposure to fallout from the weapons tests. This is particularly true of one specific element in the fallout, iodine-131, which raises risks of thyroid cancer. Essentially, this element falls on the ground with all the other radioactive components of fallout, and is picked up by cows and goats through grazing. The iodine then gets concentrated in their milk (particularly in the case of goats). But the iodine decays quickly, so the health effects would be limited to people who lived in counties that suffered heavier fallout and drank a lot of fresh milk straight from the cow or goat. In 1997, when the government first began to look at the spread and health effects of fallout from nuclear weapons tests, researchers focused specifically on iodine-131. And the so-called "milk pathway" was identified as a significant factor in public exposure. In fact, similar pathways also were a factor in the sophisticated computer models used to develop the data for this latest study. A wide range of stories on the 1997 I-131 study are available through the USA TODAY archives.SOUTH BEND, INDIANA :
Mr. Eisler,
If the US has been bombarded
with radiation since 1951 how can we test for residual radiation and how much remains
in our food chain. Should we
take iodine supplements and be
tested for radiation poisoning?

Pete Eisler:
The amount of radiation remaining in food today generally would be minimal. Many of the more dangerous elements in nuclear fallout decay substantially or entirely over 20-30 years (though some remain dangerous for centuries). So, in general, the risk of exposure to radioactive elements in nuclear weapons fallout has been diminishing steadily since the 1963 ban on above-ground testing. I certainly wouldn't recommend that you take iodine supplements unless you know of some very specific and immediate risk -- and even then I'd urge you to consult with a doctor before doing anything. If you'd like to get your food tested -- and again, I don't believe that would be necessary unless you know of some specific, immediate environmental risk -- you may want to consult with one of the public interest groups I mentioned earlier about finding a good lab.Comment from Pete Eisler:
I'm afraid I'm out of time for questions, and I apologize to all of the chat participants I didn't get to. Many thanks to everyone for participating -- and for reading USA TODAY. We all appreciate it. Peter.